Back
Non- Motor Vehicle Offences with Mandatory Jail Never Abated, Supreme Court Tells Uttar Pradesh
The on Tuesday directed the to issue a fresh ordinance expressly clarifying that prosecutions for offences under the —including those carrying and repeated violations—were under the State’s legislation. The observation came during a hearing in the long-running road safety , where a Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan grappled with the legal consequences of the .
The Act had provided for the automatic of all criminal prosecutions under the Motor Vehicles Act that were pending as of . The State’s move to effectively end thousands of traffic-related cases raised serious constitutional questions, particularly concerning its consistency with the central Motor Vehicles Act and the requirement of under .
Background of the Controversy
The Uttar Pradesh law, enacted in , sought to dispose of a large backlog of pending trials by deeming them abated. While the State argued that this was a measure to reduce case pendency and administrative burden, the provision drew immediate criticism from road safety advocates and legal experts. The Motor Vehicles Act, a central legislation, establishes a detailed framework for prosecuting traffic offences, including a clear distinction between and non- violations. Offences such as drunk driving, reckless driving causing death, and repeated violations carry and cannot be settled through compounding.
When the matter first came before the Supreme Court in , the Bench questioned the of the provision. In response, the informed the Court that it proposed to amend the law to exclude offences, offences carrying mandatory punishment, and subsequent offences from the net. Subsequently, the State promulgated an ordinance in to that effect. However, the amendment did not address the status of cases that had already been treated as abated under the original Act.
The ’s Objections
, appointed as , pressed for a more fundamental examination. He argued that the proposed amendment was insufficient because the Act itself may be constitutionally invalid. According to Mr. Agarwal, the State law conflicted with the Motor Vehicles Act—a parliamentary enactment—and had not received the President’s assent as required under . “I believe, my Lords may examine the constitutionality of such amendment because central law says you will be prosecuted. Road safety is for the citizens and if there is no deterrence, the citizens will not follow,” he submitted.
The amicus also pointed out that the State’s affidavit revealed that district-level committees had been constituted to identify cases involving offences that would continue to be prosecuted. However, he argued that identifying cases was not enough; the Court needed to decide whether the State had the to abate prosecutions under a central law in the first place. His objection highlighted a deeper tension between state criminal procedure reforms and the uniformity required for enforcement of national traffic laws.
Court’s Suggestion: A Further Ordinance
During the hearing, Justice JB Pardiwala pressed the State counsel on the fate of cases already deemed abated. The counsel for Uttar Pradesh informed the Bench that an exercise was underway to identify such cases, with information received from 72 out of 75 districts. Justice Pardiwala then suggested that the State issue another ordinance clarifying that the relevant prosecutions would be revived. He indicated that if the State provided a clear legislative solution, the Court might not need to examine the of the amendments.
Justice KV Viswanathan refined the suggestion, proposing that the ordinance should state that the offences were “never deemed” to have been abated—a formulation that would treat the original as legally inoperative from the start. The Bench subsequently recorded its expectation in the order: “We expect the State to come out with an ordinance specifically clarifying that all offences, where imprisonment is mandatory and/or .”
Legal Implications and Constitutional Questions
The Supreme Court’s intervention underscores the limits of state power to override central criminal legislation, even in the context of case management. The Motor Vehicles Act is a comprehensive statute that balances penal deterrence with provisions for compounding minor offences. By allowing wholesale of serious cases, the Uttar Pradesh law risked undermining the deterrent effect that is critical for road safety. The amicus’s reliance on Article 254(2) raises a significant constitutional question: can a state law that effectively nullifies prosecutions under a central Act be saved only if it receives ? The Court’s decision to defer that examination in favour of a legislative fix suggests a pragmatic approach, but the underlying issue remains unresolved.
If the State fails to issue the suggested ordinance or if the ordinance is again challenged, the of the Act will likely come under direct scrutiny. This could have far-reaching consequences for similar state-level laws that seek to decriminalise or abate central offences.
Impact on Legal Practice and Road Safety
For legal practitioners, the Court’s direction signals that prosecutions for serious motor vehicle offences in Uttar Pradesh must be revived and pursued. Defence lawyers who relied on the provision may now have to prepare for the resumption of proceedings. The district-level identification exercise also means that a significant number of cases—potentially thousands—will be reinstated, creating new work for prosecutors and courts.
From a policy perspective, the ruling reinforces the importance of maintaining a robust enforcement mechanism for traffic laws. The Court’s agreement with the amicus—that there is “no justification for not prosecuting” non- and offences—sends a clear message that road safety cannot be sacrificed for administrative convenience. The outcome may also influence other states contemplating similar schemes, as the Supreme Court has effectively set a precedent that central penal provisions cannot be lightly set aside.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court has given the a clear pathway to resolve the controversy without immediate constitutional adjudication. By demanding a further ordinance that retroactively clarifies the status of serious offences, the Bench has balanced the need for legal certainty with the imperative of road safety. The ball is now in the State’s court to issue the requisite ordinance, failing which the constitutional challenge may proceed. For now, the message is unequivocal: non- motor vehicle offences with were never meant to be wiped away, and the Court expects them to be prosecuted with full vigour.
